KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-11 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0186-6 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges

Ki-Jang Han*, Nam-Hyoung Lim**, Man-Gi Ko***, and Kee-Dong Kim****
Received April 8, 2014/Revised December 11, 2014/Accepted Deceember 15, 2014/Published Online February 19, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The design of stress-ribbon footbridges needs more iterations than the design of general structures. This is because, in addition to
the cross section of deck, the cross sectional areas of bearing and post-tensioning cables and the post-tensioning force should be
assumed. To minimize the iterations in this study, the regression equations of design variables, which can reasonably assume the
cross sectional area of bearing and post-tensioning cables and the post-tensioning force, are determined for various bridge lengths
with varying sag/span ratios. Also, the maximum values for the cable allowable stresses, assumed to determine the cross sectional
area of cables, are presented for various bridge lengths with various sag/span ratios. It is demonstrated through the design examples
that the suggested preliminary design method assuming design variables is efficient in minimizing iterations of the design process for
single-span and multi-span stress-ribbon footbridges and in determining the cross sectional areas of cables and the post-tensioning
force economically.
Keywords: stress-ribbon, bearing cable, post-tensioning cable, sag/span ratio, maximum cable stress, concrete stress at the top fibers
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction depends on that of cables of stress-ribbon footbridges. And in

Stress-ribbon bridges are the structures which resist to the
majority of external forces with the axial force of the post-
tensioned bridge deck produced by installing a very thin concrete
deck on cables with a specific sag and by introducing post-
tensioning forces to it. This concept was introduced for the first
time in 1958 by Ulrich Finsterwalder for a long span bridge
across the Bosporus (Festschrift, 1973). Stress-ribbon footbri-
dges generally consist of bearing and post-tensioning cables as
well as a concrete deck, and the ratio of the concrete deck depth
(d) to the bridge length (L) is so small (d/L = 0.0016 −0.008) that
the cable analysis and the membrane analysis can be allowed
(Meguru et al., 1999). Despite of the much simpler composition
than the common girder bridge, the complicated phenomena
such as time-dependent behavior of creep and shrinkage, as well
as the geometrically nonlinear behavior of deck and cable,
should be considered in structural analysis. For common girder
bridge, structural analysis and design can be accomplished only
by the assumption of cross-section and the examination of the
limit states of strength and serviceability. For stress-ribbon
footbridges, on the other hand, in addition to the assumption of
deck cross-section, the cross-sectional areas of bearing and post-
tensioning cables and the post-tensioning force should be
assumed because the behavior of stress-ribbon footbridges
addition to the limit states of strength and serviceability, the
achievement of the final targeted sag should be examined. As
mentioned above, in the design of stress-ribbon footbridges more
iterations are inevitable because it needs more assumptions and
requires an additional design item to be examined than that of
general structures. Even though various studies(Strasky, 2006;
Codo del Arco et al., 2001; JPCEA, 2000) on the analytical model
for the geometrical nonlinear cable behavior of stress-ribbon
footbridges have been made, more researches on a design method
to efficiently assume various design variables are still needed.
Therefore, this study was done to present the preliminary design
method assuming design variables which can minimize iterations
of the design process and make the design efficient as possible.
2. Guidelines in Design
2.1 General Items
Sag ratio (f/L) of stress-ribbon footbridges has a great influence on
horizontal reactions, effective pre-stressed force introduced to a
deck, vibration characteristics, and serviceability of pedestrians.
In case of a low sag ratio, since horizontal forces are increased
and the induction ratio of pre-stressed force drops rapidly,
excessive abutment is required and the design can be turned out
to be less economical (Kalafatic et al., 2006).

*Member, Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Cheonan 331-717, Korea (E-mail: han_kj@kongju.ac.kr)
**Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764, Korea (E-mail: nhrim@cnu.ac.kr)
***Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Cheonan 331-717, Korea (E-mail: mgko@kongju.ac.kr)
****Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Cheonan 331-717, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-
mail: kkkim@kongju.ac.kr)

−1−
 Ki-Jang Han, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Man-Gi Ko, and Kee-Dong Kim
As the sag ratio increases, the vibration characteristics of
stress-ribbon footbridges tend to be better because the anti-
symmetric mode becomes the lowest mode and the natural
frequency grows away gradually from the frequency range of
1.5 hz to 2.3 hz for which the design criteria for pedestrian
bridges (JPCEA, 2000) limit (Kunitomo et al., 1990).
Therefore, as the sag ratio is increased, it is quite possible to
make the design economical and efficient, but the serviceability
of pedestrians can also be dropped rapidly in case of the high sag
ratio. In the design criteria of footbridges, the maximum
longitudinal slope of footbridges is defined according to the
construction site and the purpose of use; less than 12% ( f/L = 1/
33) for the general use and less than 8% (f/L = 1/48) for disabled
persons. Considering the effect of sag ratio on the behavior and
the serviceability of footbridges, the sag ratio ranging from 1/50
to 1/30 is generally used. When the weighting value is put on the
serviceability, the low sag ratio should be selected if possible,
while the higher one should be selected reversely if the
economical efficiency matters.
The cross-sectional area of deck needs to be as small as
possible because the increase of cross-sectional area leads to the
self weight increase and in turn the increase of horizontal reaction
and a larger substructure to sustain the increased horizontal
reaction. In general, the limit states of serviceability and strength
can be easily satisfied when the post-tensioning force is introduced
such that enough stiffness guaranteeing both comfortable
walking and the stability of the shape can be developed even to
the deck with the very small depth determined by the minimum
cover requirement of both cables and reinforcing bars (Strasky,
2006; Schlaich, J, 1996). From 108 stress-ribbon bridges built in
Japan from 1965 to 2011, it is evident that the depth of a deck is
around 20 cm regardless of the bridge length. The width of a
deck should be determined in consideration of the expected
density of pedestrians and local conditions, but the design will be
economical when the width is as small as possible.
Cable analyses of stress-ribbon bridges are more convenient and
faster than finite element analyses. For stress-ribbon bridges that
have a high flexural rigidity a large degree of end restraint, however,
the bending moment of deck obtained by the cable analysis can be
underestimated. In case that the ratio of moment of inertia over the
bridge length (I/L) is larger than 2.0 × 10−5, it is reported that there is
a big difference between the results by the cable analysis and by the
finite element analysis(Sakanishi et al., 2003). Therefore, if the
bridge length is short or the flexural rigidity is big, the structural
analysis of stress-ribbon bridges can be performed through the finite
element analysis using computer programs such as DIANA (TNO,
2012) and RM Bridge (Bentley, 2012), etc.
By contrast with other bridge structures, the sag of stress-
ribbon footbridges due to creep and shrinkage decreases
because the creep effect lifts themselves. In this study, the C-S
model of JSCE (JSCE, 2013) and CEB-FIP Model Code90
(CEB, 1992) are applied to cable analysis models (Strasky,
2006; Bentley, 2012) in order to define the behavior of creep
and shrinkage.
−2−
2.2 Governing Limit State
Stress-ribbon footbridges produce the required stiffness by
introducing the post-tensioning force to the concrete deck with a
specific sag, but they show more flexible behaviors than common
girder bridge because of the very thin deck compared to the
length of the bridges. Accordingly, the examination for the limit
states of stress-ribbon footbridges is governed by the limit state
of serviceability. Stress-ribbon footbridges can be classified with
two types of structures; one as Pre-stressed Concrete (PC) not
allowing the tensile stress on the concrete deck by service loads
and the other as Partially Pre-stressed Concrete (PPC) allowing
the tensile stress. Examination on the limit state of servi-
ceability is made by comparing the maximum tensile stress of
the concrete deck to the tensile stress of the targeted value. In
Table 1, the various service load cases for stress-ribbon bridges
are shown, and the stresses at the top fibers and the sags for
service load case 12 producing the maximum concrete stress
are presented in Fig. 1. Deck self-weight D1 shown in Fig. 1 acts
on the bearing cables, and pre-stressing force PS is introduced
into the transformed section of the bearing cable cross-section
and the deck cross-section. Service loads such as pavement load
D2, creep and shrinkage (CR + SH), etc., being applied after the
introduction of post-tensioning force, are applied to the
transformed section of the deck cross-section, the bearing cable
cross-section, and the post-tensioning cable cross-section. The
variation of sag according to the construction sequence corres-
ponding to each service load is shown in Fig. 1. Service loads
such as pre-stressing force PS, creep and shrinkage (CR + SH),
and temperature decrease T (−) resulted in an upward deflection.
In case of the design of PC structure in which the tensile stress
is not allowed, the maximum stress σtM of service load case 12
needs to be equal to or larger than σtM2 as shown in Fig. 1. To be
such, the initial stress at the top fibers σtI affecting σtM should be
equal to or larger than σtI2. σtI is the initial stress at the top fibers
produced by the introduction of the post-tensioning force and
can be determined by Eq. (1) suggested by the reference
(JPCEA, 2000). In case of the design of PPC structure, σtI occurs
Table 1. Service Load Cases
Load Case No.
1 Deck construction (D1)
2 D1 + Prestressing (PS)
3 D1 + PS + Relaxation (R)
4 D1 + PS + R + Pavement (D2)
5 D1 + PS + R + D2 + Creep&Shrinkage (CR +SH)
6 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR+SH + Live (L)
7 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR + SH + Temperature (−)(T(−))
8 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR + SH + Temperature (−)(T(+))
9 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR+SH +Snow (SW)
10 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR + SH + L + T(−)
11 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR + SH + L + T(+)
12 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR+SH + L + T(−) + SW
13 D1 + PS + R + D2 + CR + SH + L + T(+) + SW
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges
Fig. 1. Stresses at the Top Fibers and Sags for Service Load Case
12
to be σtI1 which is less than σtI2, because the maximum stress at
the top fibers σtM is σtM1 that is less than σtM2.
2 maximum tensile stress of deck σtM obtained from the value of
P w d1 ⋅ L ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1
σcI = ------t- – ---------------
- × ----- – ------- × -------
Ae1 8 ⎝ fP fD ⎠ Ae1
M PS
σt1 = σcI + --------
- yt
I
where σcI is the initial stress at the centroid, σtI is the initial stress
at the top fibers, MPS is the moment by the introduction of the
post-tensioning force, I is the moment of inertia, yt is the distance
from the centroid to the top fibers, Pt is the post-tensioning force
in which the instantaneous loss is reflected, Ae1 is the trans-
formed area of deck and bearing cables, wd1 is the deck self
weight, fD is the sag by the deck self weight, and fP is the sag by
the introduction of the post-tensioning force and the deck self
weight. Variables affecting σtI are Pt, fD, fP, and MPS, and lots of
iterations are required to determine those variables because it is
difficult for them to be assumed reasonably all at once in the
design process.
σtI, as shown in Eq. (1b), can be determined from the initial
stress at the centroid σd, and the post-tensioning force Pt
introduced to produce σcI can be determined from Equation(1a).
To use Eq. (1a), the appropriate σcI, fD, and fP should be determined
firstly through lots of iterations so that the maximum stress σtM
may satisfy the targeted value. Since σcI, fD, and fP are the
variables that should be assumed appropriately to satisfy the
limit state of serviceability, those variables can be considered as
the governing design variables. Therefore, this study intends to
present a reasonable method that can assume σcI, fD, and fP
appropriately without lots of iterations.
2.3 Governing Design Variables
In the design of stress-ribbon bridges the limit states of
serviceability and strength are examined after determining the
cross-section of deck, the cross-sectional areas of bearing and
post-tensioning cables, and the post-tensioning force so that the
final sag ff by service loads such as deck self weight, post-
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
tensioning force, relaxation, pavement, and creep/shrinkage may
match up with the targeted sag ffT.
If the final sag ff determined from the sag by the deck self
weight fD plus the sag change ∆sag by the introduction of post-
tensioning force, relaxation, pavement and creep/shrinkage isn't
in accord with the final targeted sag ffT, variables affecting both
the sag change ∆sag and fD should be reassumed (Fig. 2). Among
the design variables, the adjustable variables are as follows; the
cross-sectional area of post-tensioning cables and the post-
tensioning force which affect ∆sag, and the cross-sectional area of
bearing cables and the horizontal reaction which affect fD. The
adjustable portion of the sag change ∆sag is ∆Psag produced by the
introduction of post-tensioning force Pt. fP is the sag determined
from both the sag by the deck self weight fD and ∆Psag (Fig. 2). To
achieve the final targeted sag ffT, therefore, the post-tensioning
force Pt should be adjusted so that fP may satisfy the final
targeted sag ffT.
The limit state of serviceability is examined by comparing the
(1a) σcI, which is determined by applying fD, fP and Pt adjusted to
satisfy ffT to Eq. (1), with its target ótM. Therefore, fD, fP and Pt
should be adjusted so they satisfy the limit state of serviceability
(1b) as well as the final targeted sag ffT. To investigate the variance of
the maximum tensile stress of deck when fD and fP are changed to
satisfy ffT, the design for the total eighteen stress-ribbon footbridges
with the length of 30 m, 40 m, 50 m, 60 m, 80 m, and 120 m
applying the final targeted sag ratio of 1/30, 1/40, and 1/50, was
conducted. The deck cross-section used for the eighteen stress-
ribbon footbridges is shown in Fig. 3. The behavior of stress-
ribbon footbridges with the very small depth ratio over the length
is very similar to that of cables. Among the analysis models
(Strasky, 2006; Codo del Arco et al., 2001; JPCEA, 2000) which
can define the behavior of cables, the cable model of the
reference (JPCEA, 2000) was used in this study and the
examination for the design was performed by using RM Bridge
(Bentley, 2012).
The stress at the top fibers and the sag of service load case 12,
according to the change of fD when the bridge has a length of
Fig. 2. Sag Changes Due to Loads
Fig. 3. Cross-Section of Deck
−3−
 Ki-Jang Han, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Man-Gi Ko, and Kee-Dong Kim
80 m and a sag ratio of 1/40, were shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. Since fD is defined by the sum of ffT and ∆sag as
shown in Fig. 2, it was determined by changing ∆sag for ffT of 2 m.
The range of ∆sag used is 0.14 ffT ~ 0.26 ffT. The corresponding
value of fP for the change of fD was determined so that the final
sag ff , obtained by service loads up to creep/shrinkage, matches
up with the final targeted sag ffT. The stress at the top fibers of the
deck according to the change of ∆sag/ ffT (∆sag= fD − ffT) was shown
in Fig. 4. If the target σtM is placed on the solid line of the graph,
like dot A of Fig. 4, ∆sag/ ffT and σtI (dot A’) corresponding to the
target σtM can be determined directly from that solid line of the
graph. In case that the target σtM isn't placed on the solid line, like
dot B, ∆sag/ffT of dot B can be determined by the linear
interpolation of dot A and dot C, and ótI of dot B by the linear
interpolation of dot A' and dot C', respectively. The sag of load
case 12 corresponding to ∆sag/ffT, determined from Fig. 4, can be
decided like the dotted line k obtained by the linear interpolation
of the solid lines in Fig. 5. The y coordinates of dot E’ and dot E
on the dotted line k indicate fD and fP, respectively.
The horizontal reaction H0 (= wd l2/8fD) due to the deck self
weight can be estimated by using fD of Fig. 5, and the cross-
sectional area of bearing cables Ap1 also can be determined from
H0/fmax. If fD, fP, and σtI of Figs. 4 and 5 are substituted for Eq. (1),
Fig. 4. Stress at The Top Fibers According to ∆sag/ffT Variation
Fig. 5. Sag According to ∆sag/ffT Variation
−4−
the post-tensioning force Pt can be calculated and the cross-
sectional area of post-tensioning cables Ap2 also can be determined
from Pt/fmax. fmax is cable allowable stress assumed by a designer.
If the design is performed by using the cross-sectional areas of
bearing and post-tensioning cables and the post-tensioning force
determined as above, the limit states of serviceability and
strength as well as the final targeted sag can be satisfied without
iterations. In order to apply this process to stress-ribbon footbridges
with the generally used length ranging from 30 m to 150 m and
various sag ratios, ∆sag/ffT- σtM relationship (Line 1), ∆sag/ffT - σtI
relationship (Line 2), and ∆sag/ffT - fP relationship (Line 3) as
shown in Figs. 4 and 5 were determined for the total eighteen
stress-ribbon footbridges with the length of 30 m, 40 m, 50 m,
60 m, 80 m, and 120 m applying the sag ratio of 1/30, 1/40, and
1/50 respectively, and the regression analysis was performed.
2.4 Assumption for Cross-Sectional Areas of Cables and
Post-Tensioning Force
2.4.1 Assumption for Governing Design Variables Using
Regression Equations
The results of regression analysis for ∆sag/ffT- σtM relationship,
∆sag/ffT - σcI relationship, and ∆sag/ffT - fP relationship determined
from the design of the total eighteen footbridges were shown in
Figs. 6, 7, and 8, and Table 2. In Figs. 6, 7, and 8, the result of
regression analysis for the bridge length of 80 m was presented.
For the bridge lengths of 30 m, 40 m, 50 m, 60 m and 120 m, the
result of regression analysis was presented in Table 2. From the
results of regression analysis in Figs. 6, 7 and 8, it can be seen
that the three relationships above can be defined appropriately as
a linear form. The determination process of governing design
variables fD, σcI, and fP through the regression equations of Figs. 6, 7,
and 8, is as follow. First step is to determine ∆sag/ffT by the
substitution of target σtM for regression equations of Fig. 6, and
the next is to decide σcI and fP through the substitution of
determined ∆sag/ffT or regression equations of Figs. 7 and 8. For
example, in case of limiting the maximum concrete tensile stress
σtM to 0.0 MPa for PC structure, x value (x coordinate of dot A)
Fig. 6. ∆sag/ffT - σtM Relationships
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges
Fig. 7. ∆sag/ffT - σcI Relationships
Fig. 8. ∆sag/ffT - fP Relationships
obtained by substituting the target σtM of 0.0 MPa (y value of dot
A) for the regression equation of Fig. 6 is ∆sag/ffT which satisfies
the final targeted sag ffT. Also, y values obtained by the substitution
of the decided ∆sag/ffT (x value of dot B and dot C) for the
regression equations of Figs. 7 and 8, are σcI and fP, respec-
tively.
∆sag/ffT -span length and σcI -span length relationships determined
to satisfy the final sag ratios of 1/30, 1/40, and 1/50 and the
targeted maximum stress at the top fibers of 0.0MPa are shown
in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, respectively. As the span length decreases,
∆sag/ffT and σcI decrease linearly for the span length larger than
60m while ∆sag/ffT and ócI increase non-linearly for the span
length less than 60m. The regression equations in Table 2 were
determined at an interval of 10m for the span length less than
60 m to define the non-linear relationships of design variables
and span length. Linear interpolation of the regression equations
shown in Table 2 can be used for span lengths that the regression
equations are not presented.
Regression equations of Table 2 are determined from using the
cross-section configuration with the effective width of 1.5 m and
the deck depth of 0.18 m presented in Fig. 3. If the cross-section
different from that of Fig. 3 is used in the design, governing
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
Fig. 9. ∆sag/ffT - Span Length Relationships
Fig. 10. σcI - Span Length Relationships
design variables determined from the regression equations of
Table 1 will have an error because of the difference in both the
self-weight and the moment of inertia. To investigate the error of
governing design variables when the cross-section is changed,
∆sag/ffT - σtM relationships are determined respectively by applying
three different cross-sections to the stress-ribbon footbridge with
the length of 80m and the sag ratio of 1/40. The first cross-
section is the one shown in Fig. 3 (cross-section A). The second
one has an effective width of 1.5 m and a depth of 0.2 m (cross-
section B; A = 0.5910 m2, I = 0.00337 m4), and the third one has
an effective width of 2.0m and a depth of 0.18 m (cross-section
C; A = 0.6330 m2, I = 0.00301 m4). The results of regression
analysis for ∆sag/ffT - σtM relationships of cross-sections A, B, and
C are presented in Fig. 11.
Compared to cross-section A, cross-section B showed an
increase of 8.8% and 23.9% in the cross-sectional area and the
moment of inertia respectively, while cross-section C showed an
increase of 16.6% and 10.7% respectively. For cross-section B,
the increase of the moment of inertia due to the increase of deck
depth occurs larger than the increase of bending moment due to
the increase of self-weight, while for cross-section C, the
increase of bending moment due to the increase of self-weight
−5−
 Ki-Jang Han, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Man-Gi Ko, and Kee-Dong Kim

Table 2. Regression Equations (y = Ax + B)

L(m) f/L A B L(m) f/L A B L(m) f/L A B
1/50 25.9 -12.0 1/50 55.5 -5.7 1/50 1.1 2.46
120 1/40 39.4 -10.0 120 1/40 70.7 -3.6 120 1/40 1.5 3.04
1/30 70.7 -8.3 1/30 107.0 -2.7 1/30 2.0 4.04
1/50 22.5 -9.7 1/50 49.0 -4.3 1/50 0.8 1.64
80 1/40 35.4 -8.2 80 1/40 66.4 -3.5 80 1/40 1.0 2.04
1/30 65.5 -6.8 1/30 102.3 -2.7 1/30 1.3 2.70
1/50 23.0 -9.9 1/50 52.4 -6.7 1/50 0.6 1.24
60 1/40 32.4 -7.5 60 1/40 63.8 -3.6 60 1/40 0.8 1.52
1/30 60.7 -6.2 1/30 101.4 -3.1 1/30 1.0 2.03
σtM σcI fP
1/50 21.1 -9.7 1/50 53.8 -7.6 1/50 0.5 1.03
50 1/40 30.8 -7.4 50 1/40 68.2 -4.9 50 1/40 0.7 1.27
1/30 56.3 -5.8 1/30 102.6 -3.4 1/30 0.9 1.69
1/50 15.1 -8.5 1/50 54.3 -7.4 1/50 0.4 0.83
40 1/40 23.4 -6.6 40 1/40 66.0 -4.2 40 1/40 0.5 1.02
1/30 45.8 -5.3 1/30 97.9 -2.9 1/30 0.7 1.35
1/50 14.4 -11.4 1/50 73.9 -21.3 1/50 0.3 0.66
30 1/40 20.9 -8.1 30 1/40 141.7 -32.6 30 1/40 0.4 0.78
1/30 45.6 -6.6 1/30 133.5 -8.3 1/30 0.4 1.04

section C occurs toward the tensile side. In spite of the change of

Fig. 11. ∆sag/ffT- σtM Relationships for Various Deck Cross-sections
appears larger than the increase of the moment of inertia due to
the increase of deck width. If the design is performed using ∆sag/
ffT (dot A0) used for cross-section A, then, the maximum stress at
the top fibers of cross-section B occurs toward the compressive
side as compared to that of cross-section A, while that of cross-
cross-section, to get the maximum stress of 0.0 MPa at the top
fibers, which is identical to that of cross-section A, ∆sag/ffT of
cross-section B should be decreased like dot B0 in Fig. 11 and
that of cross-section C should be increased like dot C0 in Fig. 11.
For cross-sections B and C, the governing design variables
∆sag/ffT, σc and fP are determined by applying σtM of 0.0 MPa to
the regression equations of Table 2, and the maximum stresses at
the top fibers σtM for cross-sections B and C, obtained by using
those variables, indicate dot B1 and dot C1 in Fig. 11, respectively. To
investigate the difference between the accurate values (dot B0
and C0) and the approximate values (dot B1 and C1), primary
design results based on the two types of values are presented in
Table 3. From the design results of the accurate value (dot B0)
and the approximate value (dot B1) for cross-section B, it has
been shown that the maximum horizontal reaction and the cross-
sectional areas of bearing and post-tensioning cables based on
the approximate value are almost similar to those of the accurate
one. The reason of similarity may be attributed to the fact that σtM
of 0.056 MPa based on the approximate value is very similar to
σtM of 0.0 MPa of the accurate one. From the design results based
on the accurate and approximate values (dot C0 and dot C1) for

Table 3. Design Results of Exact and Approximated Solutions for Various Cross-sections
x-section B x-section C
B0 B1 C0 C1 C2
Max. Horizontal Reaction(kN) 9153 9124 10307 10258 10256
Post-tensioning Force(kN) 7461 7461 8577 7978 8469
fD (m) 2.458 2.464 2.482 2.464 2.486
ffT (m) 2.0 2.005 2.0 2.008 2.009
σtM (MPa) 0.0 0.056 0.0 -0.406 -0.009
Bearing Cable Area (mm2) 5825 5767 6127 6172 6117
Posttensioning Cable Area (mm2) 8983 8983 10365 9605 10227

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges
cross-section C, it is shown that σtM of the approximate value is
the unintended tensile stress of -0.406 MPa, and the cross-
sectional area of post-tensioning cables and post-tensioning force
based on the approximate value are about 7% less than those
based on the accurate one. For the case that σtM based on the
approximate value differs significantly from the target σtM, the
difference can be corrected through the iterations. The error
correction of the approximate σtM of -0.406 MPa for cross-section
C, can be achieved through the calculation of σ of 0.406 MPa
(Fig. 11), obtained by subtracting the approximate σtM of -0.406 MPa
from the target σtM of 0.0 MPa, and through the determination of
the governing design variables by applying σ again to the
regression equations in Table 2. The maximum stress at the top
fibers σtM re-determined through this process appears to be
-0.009 MPa (dot C2 of Fig. 11), which is about the same as the
target σtM, and the primary design results are very similar to those
based on the accurate value, as shown in Fig. 11 and Table 3.
2.4.2 Efficient Assumption for Cross-Sectional Areas of
Cables
The strength limit state of stress-ribbon footbridges is examined
by investigating the failure of cross-section as done in the case of
general members. Normally, examination of the cross-section
failure should be performed by checking the safety for bending
moment, shearing force, torsional moment, and the axial force.
However, since the stress-ribbon footbridges resist to the
external force mainly with the axial force, the examination on the
strength limit state can only be performed by checking the safety
for the axial force with the exception of the haunches at piers and
abutments (JPCEA, 2000). The failure of deck cross-section in
stress-ribbon footbridges generally arises when cables rupture
after concrete cracks occur and reinforcing bars yield. Accordingly,
the examination of strength limit state for the cross section
failure is performed by comparing the maximum tension of
cables with the design strength of cables like Eq. (2). In Eq. (2),
Sd is the maximum tension of cables due to the factored loads, Rd
is the design strength of cables defined by the strength and the
cross-sectional area of cables, and ri is the load modifier.
Therefore, the cross-sectional area of cables becomes the
minimum when being determined so that the value of (Sd /Rd) γi
can be 1.0.
( Sd /Rd )γi ≤ 1.0 (2)
In general, the maximum stresses of bearing and post-
tensioning cables occur from the installation of deck and the
introduction of post-tensioning force, respectively. Accordingly,
the cross-sectional areas of bearing and post-tensioning cables
are determined from AP1 = H0/fmax and AP2 = Pt /fmax , respectively.
fmax is the cable allowable stress assumed by a designer and is
generally regulated not to be greater than 0.7fpu, and fpu is the
ultimate strength of cables. Since the cross-sectional area of
cables depends on the value of fmax, σtM -(Sd /Rd) γi relationships
according to the change of fmax are investigated to determine the
appropriate fmax which can reduce the cross-sectional area of
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
cables efficiently and satisfy the limit state of strength.
The design of the stress-ribbon footbridge of 80 m length with
the cross-section of Fig. 3 and the sag ratio of 1/40 was
performed in order to investigate the variance of (Sd/Rd) γi - σtM
relationship resulting from the change of fmax. The scope of fmax
used is 0.45fpu ~ 0.70fpu. (Sd/Rd) γi was determined from changing
the maximum stress at the top fibers σtM from -3 MPa to 1 MPa
for the respective fmax, and the results are shown as (Sd/Rd) γi -σtM
relationships for various fmax’s shown in Fig. 12.
Dot A and dot B of Fig. 12 are determined by aiming at σtM of -
0.24 MPa and -3.0 MPa respectively and applying fmax of 0.55fpu.
Since the maximum stress at the top fibers of dot A is restricted
more severely than that of dot B, the post-tensioning force of dot
A is larger than that of dot B. (Sd/Rd) γi of dot A is smaller than
that of dot B because the cross-sectional area of post-tensioning
cables for dot A is larger than that for dot B.
Dot C was determined by applying fmax of 0.7fpu and aiming at
σtM of -0.24 MPa. For the case of dot C, the post-tensioning force
identical to dot A was introduced because σtM of dot C was the
same as that of dot A. However, the cross-sectional areas of
bearing and post-tensioning cables were decreased because of
the larger fmax than that of dot A and the value of (Sd/Rd) γi is
bigger than that of dot A. For both dot A and dot C, the limit state
of strength is satisfied and the horizontal reactions are almost the
same, but the larger fmax of dot C can be considered to be more
efficient because the cross-sectional areas of cables for dot C are
smaller than those for dot A.
For the case of dot C, the cross-sectional area of bearing cables
decreases due to the larger fmax than that of dot B, and the cross-
sectional area of post-tensioning cables increases due to the
much larger post-tensioning force than that of dot B. And the
total cross-sectional areas of bearing and post-tensioning cables
for dot C and dot B appear to be identical because of the same
value of (Sd/Rd) γi . Though the total cross-sectional areas of
cables and the horizontal reactions for dot C and dot B are almost
the same, fmax of 0.7fpu for dot C can be considered to be more
efficient than fmax of 0.55fpu for dot B because σtM for dot C is
restricted more severely. Therefore, σtM and fmax of dot C in Fig. 9
Fig. 12. σtM -(Sd/Rd)γi Relationships for Various fmax
−7−
 Ki-Jang Han, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Man-Gi Ko, and Kee-Dong Kim
are the most economical and the most efficient for the domain
that the value of (Sd /Rd)ri and σtM are less than and equal to 1 and
σ ctM, respectively. For σtM between σ ctM and 0.0 MPa in Fig. 9,
fmax of 0.7fpu (Line C-D) can decrease the cross-sectional area of
cables most efficiently. The selection of the appropriate σtM on
Line C-D can be made by considering cost-benefit because the
cross-sectional areas of cables for dot C is smaller than that for
dot D whereas σtM for dot D is restricted more severely.(because
the more severely σtM is restricted, the more significantly the
cross-sectional area of cables increases).
(Sd/Rd)γi - σtM relationships for the maximum fmax, according to
the bridge length and the sag ratio, are shown in Fig. 13. The
maximum fmax is the maximum of cable allowable stress, which
can reduce the cross-sectional area of cables to a minimum,
satisfying the limit state of strength. As the bridge length and the
sag ratio increases, the maximum fmax decreases. For the
footbridge with the bridge length of 80m and the sag ratio of 1/
30, the maximum fmax appeared to be less than 0.7fpu. For the
bridge lengths of 100 m and 120 m, the maximum fmax decreases
more and more as the sag ratio increases, as shown in Table 4.
For the case with the bridge length and the sag ratio where the
maximum fmax appears to be less than 0.7fpu, σtM of 0.0MPa for
dot E in Fig. 13 and the corresponding maximum fmax in Table 4
will produce the most efficient design results. For the bridge
Fig. 13. σtM - (Sd/Rd) γi Relationships for Maximum fmax of Various
Footbridges
Fig. 14. Final Target Sag and Span Length
Table 4. Maximum for fmax Various Bridge Lengths and Sag Ratios
L = 80 m
f/L 1/50 1/40 1/30 1/50
Max, fmax 0.7 0.7 0.67 0.69
−8−
lengths less than or equal to 80 m except for the bridge with the
length of 80m and the sag ratio of 1/30, the maximum fmax is
0.7fpu and the cross-sectional area of cables can be decreased
most efficiently by using the maximum fmax of 0.7fpu for the range
of σtM defined by Line C-D of Fig. 13. If the tensile stress is
restricted from PPC structure of dot C to PC structure of dot D,
the cross-sectional area of cables increases by 2 ~ 9% for the
bridge of 80 m length, whereas it increases by about 43 ~ 68%
for the bridge of 40 m length. Therefore, it should be noted that
the difference of cable areas used for PPC structure and PC
structure can be quite large for short bridges. The allowable
tensile stress of concrete σall, shown in Fig. 13, was determined
by using the concrete strength of 50 MPa. For the bridge lengths
and the sag ratios that the maximum fmax is not provided, linear
interpolation of the maximum fmax presented in Table 4 can be
used.
3. Design Examples
The design of total two footbridges of a single-span and a two-
span with the sag ratio of 1/30 shown in Fig. 14 was performed
using the regression equations of Table 2. To design them as a
PC structure not allowing the tensile stress on the concrete deck,
the maximum stress at the top fibers σtM was required not to be
less than 0.0 MPa. And the deck cross-section shown in Fig. 3
was used.
Governing design variables ∆sag/ffT, σcI, and fp for the length of
100 m, determined from the linear interpolation of the regression
equations for the lengths of 80 m and 120 m in Table 2, are
shown in Table 5. The maximum fmax for the length of 100 m in
Table 4 is 0.64fpu but the cross-sectional areas of bearing and
post-tensioning cables are determined through the application of
fmax of 0.60fpu while considering the factor of safety, and the
results are shown in Table 5. By using the design variables and
the cross-sectional areas of cables in Tables 5, structural analysis
was performed and the concrete stresses at the top fibers and the
sags produced by various design loads are shown in Fig. 15(a).
The final sag ff became identical to the final targeted sag ffT
without iterations by using the regression equations presented in
Table 2, and the targeted PC structure was accomplished as the
maximum stress at the top fibers σtM appeared to be 0.034 MPa.
L = 100 m L = 120 m
1/40 1/30 1/50 1/40 1/30
0.68 0.64 0.69 0.66 0.61
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges

Table 5. Determination of Design Variables and Cable Cross-sectional Areas for a Single-span Footbridge
d = 180 mm d = 160 mm
fmax fmax = 0.60fpu fmax = 0.64fpu From Table 4
− Select σtM = 0.0 MPa − Select σtM = 0.26 MPa
− Determine ∆sag/ffT from Table 2 (σtM) − Determine ∆sag/ffT from Table 2 (σtM)
0.0 = 65.5x − 6.8 ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (80 m) = 0.104 0.26 = 65.5x − 6.8 ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (80 m) = 0.108
∆sag/ffT 0.0 = 70.7x − 8.3 ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (120 m) = 0.117 0.26 = 70.7x − 8.3 ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (120 m) = 0.121
Linear interpolation ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (100 m) = 0.111 Linear interpolation ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (100 m) = 0.115
− Calculate fD − Calculate fD
fD (100 m) = 0.111 × 3.333 m + 3.333 m = 3.703 m fD (100 m) = 0.115 × 3.333 m + 3.333 m = 3.716 m
− Get σcI from Table 2 (σcI) − Get σcI from Table 2 (σcI)
y = 102.3 × 0.104-2.7 ⇒ σcI (80 m) = 7.939 MPa y = 102.3 × 0.108-2.7 ⇒ σcI (80 m) = 8.348 MPa
σcI
y = 107.0 × 0.117 − 2.7 ⇒ σcI (120 m) = 9.819 MPa y = 107.0 × 0.121-2.7 ⇒ σcI (120 m) = 10.247 MPa
Linear interpolation ⇒ σcI (100 m) = 8.879 MPa Linear interpolation ⇒ σcI (100 m) = 9.298 MPa
− Get fp from Table 2 ( fp) Get fp from Table 2 (fp)
y = 1.3 × 0.104 + 2.70 ⇒ fp (80 m) = 2.835 y = 1.3 × 0.108+2.70 ⇒ fp(80 m) = 2.840
fp
y = 2.0 × 0.117 + 4.04 ⇒ fp (120 m) = 4.274 y = 2.0 × 0.121+4.04 ⇒ fp(120 m) = 4.282
Linear interpolation ⇒ fp (100 m) = 3.555 m Linear interpolation ⇒ fp(100 m) = 3.561 m
− Horizontal force (H0) − Horizontal force (H0)
wd × L2 13.575 × 1002 wd1 × L2 12.375 × 1002
H0 = ----------------- = -------------------------------- = 4282.4 kN H0 = ------------------
- = ------------------------------ = 4163 kN
8 × fD 8 × 3.703 8 × fD 8 × 3.716
Bearing Cable
− Required Cable Area (ΣAp1) − Required Cable Area (ΣAp1)
H 0 4582400 H 0 4163000
ΣAp1 = ---------------------- = --------------------------- = 4128 mm2 ΣAp1 = ---------------------- = --------------------------- = 3516 mm2
0.60 × fput 0.60 × 1850 0.64 × fput 0.64 × 1850
− Pre-stressing force (Pt) − Pre-stressing force (Pt)
wd1 × L ⎛ ----
2
1 1 wd × L
2
1 1
- × ⎝ - – -----⎞⎠ =5012 kN
pt = σcIAe1 + ------------------ - × ⎛ ----- – -----⎞ = 4784 kN
pt = σcIAe1 + ------------------
1
⎝ fP fD ⎠
8 fP fD 8
Post-tensioning Cable
− Required Cable Area (Ap2) − Required Cable Area (Ap2)
Pt 5012000 - Pt 5012000 -
ΣAp2 = ---------------------
- = -------------------------- = 4215 mm2 ΣAp2 = ---------------------
- = -------------------------- = 4041 mm2
0.60 × fput 0.60 × 1850 0.60 × fput 0.60 × 1850

The values of (Sd/Rd) γi and fmax/0.7fpu were 0.90 and 0.86,
respectively, and the limit state of strength and the limit of fmax
were satisfied.
Considering that the cross-sectional areas of cables can be
decreased if the maximum fmax is used and that the effective
depth of deck shown in Fig. 3 can be decreased if the minimum
cover thickness is employed, the design was performed again by
reducing the effective depth up to 0.16 m and by minimizing the
cross-sectional areas of cables,
As the maximum stress at the top fibers σtM was -0.26 MPa
determined from using the governing design variables of Table 5
and the maximum fmax of 0.64fpu, the targeted value of 0.0 MPa
for σtM was not achieved. To correct the error, the governing
design variables were re-determined by applying σ of 0.26 MPa
to the regression equations of Table 2, and are shown in Table 5.
Through the application of re-determined governing design
variables and the maximum fmax, the cross-sectional areas of
bearing and post-tensioning cables were determined again and
are presented in Table 5. Structural analysis was performed by
using the re-determined governing design variables and the

Fig. 15. Variation of Concrete Stresses and Sags According to Service Loads: (a) Single-span, (b) Two-span

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −9−

 Ki-Jang Han, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Man-Gi Ko, and Kee-Dong Kim

cross-sectional areas of cables, and Fig. 15(a) shows the stresses
at the top fibers and the sags due to various design loads. Even
though there was a change in the cross-sectional area of deck, the
final sag ff became identical to the final targeted sag ffT with only
one iteration, and the targeted PC structure was accomplished as
the maximum stress at the top fibers σtM appeared to be
0.045 MPa. Also, the limit state of strength and the limit of fmax
were satisfied as the values of (Sd/Rd) γi and fmax/0.7fpu were 0.96
and 0.89, respectively.
By applying the deck depth of 0.16m and the maximum fmax of
0.64fpu, the deck area decreases by 9%, the cross-sectional areas
of bearing and post-tensioning cables decrease by 7% and 14%,
respectively, and the maximum horizontal reaction Hmax
decreases by 6%, as compared to the first design. It has been
shown that the economical design can be performed by
minimizing the deck cross-section if possible and by using the
maximum fmax.
The design for a total 100 m two-span bridge with the span
length of 50 m was performed using the same cross sectional
areas of cables and the same post-tensioning force for two spans.
Governing design variables ∆sag/ffT, σcI, and fp, determined from
the regression equations for the 50 m length of Table 2, are
shown in Table 6. The cross-sectional areas of bearing and post-
tensioning cables were determined through the application of fmax
of 0.7fpu. By using the design variables and the cross-sectional
areas of cables in Tables 6, structural analysis was performed and
the concrete stresses at the top fibers and the sags produced by
various design loads are shown in Fig. 15(b). The final sag ff
became identical to the final targeted sag ffT without iterations by
using the regression equations of Table 2, and the targeted PC
structure was accomplished as the maximum stress at the top
fibers σtM appeared to be 0.009 MPa. The values of (Sd /Rd) γi and
fmax/0.7fpu were 0.83 and 0.99, respectively, and the limit state of
strength and the limit of fmax were satisfied. From the comparison
of the two design examples, it can be shown that the bearing
cable area and the post-tensioning cable area of the two-span
bridge with the total length of 100m decrease by 57% and 23%,
respectively, and the maximum horizontal reaction Hmax
decreases by 52%, as compared to the single-span footbridge of
100 m.
It is demonstrated through the design examples that the
suggested preliminary design method assuming design variables
is efficient in minimizing iterations of the design process for
single-span and multi-span stress-ribbon footbridges. The suggested
method can be effectively used to economically determine the
deck depth, the cross sectional areas of cables, and the post-
tensioning force for single-span and multi-span stress-ribbon
footbridges with the generally used length ranging from 30 m to
150 m.
4. Conclusion
Since the cross sectional areas of bearing and post-tensioning
cables and the post-tensioning force in addition to the cross
section of deck should be assumed, the design of stress-ribbon
footbridges needs more iteration processes than the design of
general structures. Therefore, in this study, it was intended to
present the preliminary design method assuming design variables
that can minimize iteration processes occurring in the design and
can make the design efficient as possible. Regression equations

Table 6. Determination of Design Variables and Cable Cross-sectional Areas for a Two-span Footbridge
L = 50 m (1) L = 50 m (2)
fmax fmax = 0.70fpu fmax = 0.70fpu
− Select σtM = 0.0 MPa
− Determine ∆sag/ffT from Table 2 (σtM)
∆sag/ffT 0.0 = 56.3x − 5.8 ⇒ ∆sag/ffT (50 m) = 0.103 fD (50 m) = 0.103 × 1.67 m + 1.67 m = 1.842 m
− Calculate fD
fD (50 m) = 0.103 × 1.67 m + 1.67 m = 1.842 m
− Get scI from Table 2 (σcI)
σcI -
y = 102.6 × 0.103 − 3.4 ⇒ σcI (60 m) = 7.168 MPa
− Get fp from Table 2 ( fp)
fp -
y = 0.9 × 0.103 + 1.69 ⇒ fp(60 m) = 1.783
− Horizontal force (H0)
2
wd × L 13.575 × 50
2

H0 = ------------------- = ---------------------------- = 2303 kN

1
8 × fD 8 × 1.842 − Required Cable Area (ΣAp1)
Bearing Cable H 2303000
− Required Cable Area(Ap1) 0
ΣAp1 = ---------------------
- = --------------------------- = 1779 mm2
H0 2303000 0.70 × fput 0.70 × 1850
Ap1 = --------------------- = -------------------------- = 1779 mm2
0.70 × fput 0.70 × 1850
− Pre-stressing force (Pt)
2
wd × L 1 1
1
- × ⎛ ---- – ----⎞ = 4019 kN
pt = σcIAe1 + ------------------
⎝ fP fD⎠ − Required Cable Area (ΣAp2)
8
Post-tensioning Cable H 4019000
− Required Cable Area (Ap2) 0
ΣAp2 = ---------------------- = --------------------------- = 3103 mm2
Pt 4019000 - 0.70 × fput 0.70 × 1850
ΣAp2 = ---------------------
- = -------------------------- = 3103 mm2
0.70 × fput 0.70 × 1850

− 10 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Efficient Assumption of Design Variables for Stress Ribbon Footbridges
for the various design variables that can assume efficiently the
cross sectional area of bearing and post-tensioning cables and the
post-tensioning force were determined for the total eighteen
footbridges with the bridge length of 30 m, 40 m, 50m, 60 m,
80 m and 120 m applying the sag ratio of 1/50, 1/40, and 1/30
respectively, and the process of utilizing those was presented.
Also, the maximum values for the cable stresses which are
assumed for determining the cross-sectional areas of cables are
determined for the total 12 footbridges with the bridge length of
40 m, 80 m, 100 m, and 120 m applying the sag ratio of 1/50, 1/
40. and 1/30 so that the cross-sectional areas of cables can be
minimized satisfying the strength limit state.
It is demonstrated through the design examples that the
presented preliminary design method assuming design variables
is efficient in minimizing iterations of the design process for
single-span and multi-span stress-ribbon footbridges. The suggested
preliminary design method assuming design variables can be
effectively used to economically determine the deck depth, the
cross sectional areas of cables, and the post-tensioning force for
single-span and multi-span stress-ribbon footbridges with the
length ranging from 30 m to 150 m.
Notations
Ae1 = Transformed area of deck and bearing cables
AP1 = Cross-sectional area of bearing cables
AP2 = Cross-sectional area of pre-tensioning cables
fD = Sag by the deck self weight
ff = Final sag
ffT = Targeted final sag
fP = Sag by the introduction of the post-tensioning force
and the deck self weight
fmax = Cable allowable stress assumed by a designer
H0 = Horizontal reaction due to the deck self weight
Hmax = Maximum horizontal reaction
I= Moment of inertia
MPS = Moment by the introduction of the post-tensioning
force
Pt = Post-tensioning force in which the instantaneous
loss is reflected
wd1 = Deck self weight
yt = Distance from the centroid to the top fibers
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
σcI = Initial stress at the centroid fibers
σtI = Initial stress at top fibers
σtM = Maximum stress at top fibers
∆sag = Sag by fD plus the sag change by the introduction
of post-tensioning force, relaxation, pavement and
creep/shrinkage
∆Psag = Sag change by the introduction of post-tensioning
force
References
Bentley (2012). RM Bridge V8i Analysis User Gulde, Bentley Systems,
Incorporated.
Cobo del Arco, D., Aparicio, A. C., and Mari, A. R. (2001). “Preliminary
design of pre-stressed concrete stress ribbon bridges.” ASCE
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 234-241, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:4(234).
Comite Euro-international du Beton (1992). CEB-FIB Model Code for
Concrete Structures, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham
Springs, Slough, England.
Festschrift - Ulrich Finsterwalder. (1973) 50 Jahre für Dywidag, Verlag
G. Braun, Karlsruhe.
Japan Pre-stressed Concrete Engineering Association. (2000). Standard
of Design and Construction of Stress-Ribbon Bridges, JPCEA, Japan
(in Japanese).
Japan Society of Civil Engineers. (2013). Standard Specification for
Concrete Structures Design Operations, JSCE, Japan (in Japanese).
Kalafatic, I.; Radic, J., and Medak, M. (2006). “Preliminary design
procedure for one span post-tensioned stress-ribbon bridges.”
DAAAM International Scientific Book, Vol. 25, pp. 313-328.
Kunitomo, N. and Kumagai, S. (1990). “Design and construction of a
stress-ribbon Bridges(1).” Journal of Pre-stressed Concrete, Japan,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 71-75 (in Japanese).
Meguru, T. and Yasuo, K. (1999). “Estimation of damping ratio of stress
ribbon bridges an influence on serviceability.” JSCE, Nos. 612/I-46,
pp. 337-348.
Sakanishi, K., Takuya, K., and Akio, S. (2003). “Comparison of finite
deformation theory and cable theory for stress-ribbon bridges.”
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Conference of the Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, JSCE, Japan, IV-404, pp. 807-808 (in Japanese).
Schlaich, J. (1996). “Stress ribbon concrete bridges.” Structural Engineering
International, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 271-274, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.2749/101686696780496247.
Strasky, J. (2006). Stress Ribbon and Cable-Supported Pedestrian Bridges,
Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
TNO (2012). TNO DIANA user’s manual, TNO Company.
− 11 −